Re: Clang as default compiler November 4th

Roman,

Den 11/09/2012 kl. 14.38 skrev Roman Divacky <rdivacky_at_freebsd.org>:
> 
> Upstream developers almost never use gcc4.2.1 as we do. So right now the
> ports maintainer must check whats wrong in the case the (upgraded) port
> doesnt compile with our in-tree gcc.
> 
> 
> It can be trivial USE_GCC=4.something but the burden is exactly the same
> as with clang.

So can we do a sweep on the ports tree and mark the 2232 ports with USE_GCC=4.2 until they can actually build with clang? This could allow the clang switch to proceed. Hopefully, waiting for GCC to compile just to install some tiny port will be enough of a nuisance for people to eventually fix the remaining ports.

> By the nature of "developing the OS" we are forced to use compilers and
> toolchains. Recently I saw you submitting/committing patches with .byte
> sequences because our default assembler cant handle the instructions.
> I saw jhb_at_ updating binutils to support invept/invvpid.
> 
> In my eyes, switching to clang by default lowers the compiler/toolchain
> maintenance burden we have.

I agree. Switching away from abandonware to a compiler that is actively maintained is a good thing.

Regarding performance, I could do some benchmarking in my spare time, but it does seem like an unforgiving task. Anyone posting any benchmark numbers on these lists is going to be tarred, feathered, forced to print out the full GCC 4.2.1 source code, read it out loud on the town square, and spend the next month addressing concerns from people not willing to do the work themselves :-)

Erik